bells

racoleman29 said:

Democrat here. She'd never get my vote...Apple hater.

I’m a democrat as well and she would get my vote if she was the nominee but not at the primary. Her view makes more sense for companies like ATT and Comcast not Apple. It is wacky one company can be both an internet service provider and own the content. In many areas ATT and Comcast are abusive monopolies. 

Apple is not a monopoly and it build the App Store concept from the ground up. I don’t always like how it polices the store but I could switch to another phone if it mattered that much. 

Google and Facebook and Amazon have different issues. They often use their monopoly status in one area to push a new product in a new area at the expense of fair competition and to the detriment of consumers. 

MlorianFueller said:

applemagic said:

Hmm...I am not sure why AI is presenting this (the incentive payment) as some kind of a bribe that Apple offered Qualcomm. Going by Florian Mueller's article on fosspatents.com, it appears to be the other way around!

That is, Qualcomm had a habit of negotiating incentive payments from device makers in return for strategic favours. So, there's really no wrinkle in the FTC case, as suggested by AI. Instead, it's one of four issues related to Qualcomm's conduct that are being investigated. To quote:

********

For the FTC, Jennifer Milici outlined the four key issues surrounding Qualcomm's conduct that the FTC is tackling (let's not forget that some other aspects are at issue in Apple v. Qualcomm in San Diego, where a trial will start on April 15), which are interrelated as she also explained:

• the "no license-no chips" policy;
• incentive payments (for a brief explanation, those incentives effectively reduce patent licensing fees in exchange for doing Qualcomm some strategically-relevant favors);
• the refusal to license rival chipset makers (note that Judge Koh's summary judgment in this context was based on contractual obligations, while the focus at this trial is now on an antitrust duty to deal); and
• past exclusive arrangements with Apple.

********

http://www.fosspatents.com/2019/01/in-its-courtroom-chess-match-with.html

We all know Florian Mueller is paid by Apple and has been Apple support for so many years. His blog is biased and has no credibility. The fact that FTC is getting testimony from Apple and other manufactures saying Qualcomm is a monopoly shows the flaw in the FTC case. Apple suing because of the price that has been previously agreed upon by Apple and come to know the only reason that both companies agreed to the deal is because Apple demanded a $1 billion "incentive payment" to secure the deal. Apple will and always eat alive their suppliers.

Oh, and btw - https://www.sullcrom.com/district-court-holds-that-frand-commitment-does-not-require-licensing-at-chip-level

You are kidding right? Mueller mostly took Samsung and Nokia's in Apple's fight with those two. Further, Qualcomm's CEO's testimony doesn't even make sense. Apple didn't have any leverage over Qualcomm to demand anything. Who else is the FTC going to get to testify other than the companies that have dealings with Qualcomm?

Additionally, if a robber asks you for the hundred dollars in your pocket, and you agree because he has a gun to your head, that doesn't really mean you agreed in a legally binding manner.

The district court case doesn't mean anything. Texas is a friendly to patent Plaintiff's that is why everybody sues there. The case was contrary to how a California court rules, and the Texas court had to apply French law. It likely will get appealed. 

ktappe said:

I wonder if a legal expert could answer this Q:   If the requisite evidence has already been presented in U.S. court, isn't it therefore available to the German court? Or are German courts willfully blind to previously available discovery? If the latter, that seems like a pretty f---ed up "justice" system Germany has.

Qualcomm is claiming Apple's devices infringe a battery saving technology. Apple and its supplier Quorvo is saying that is not the case. Apple can achieve the same result using another method not patented by Qualcomm. However, Apple's supplier Quorvo doesn't want to share the information with Qualcomm's engineers because it is a trade secret.

So, in the US, the Court was allowed to view Quorvo's technology without it being made available to Qualcomm's engineers, and the Judge was convinced Apple's iPhones didn't infringe Qualcomm's patents.

The difference in outcome is between the way the courts and parties handled the evidence. In the US, the Court was able to evaluate the evidence, which was kept secret from Qualcomm's engineers. In Germany, Qualcomm prevented Apple and its supplier from keeping the evidence confidential, which allowed the Judge to rule against Apple. Totally whacky if you ask me. 

Apple's supplier is rightfully worried that if its trade secrets are revealed to Qualcomm, Qualcomm will steal its otherwise unprotected technology. 

elijahg said:

StrangeDays said:

Dead_Pool said:

More evidence that prices are too high across the board. The phones are not the problem; the prices are. Half of the iPhone’s price increase since it was released a decade ago has come in the last year alone.  

Actually, you’re wrong - the only “evidence” is Apple’s record profits, which suggest the price on iphones has been too *low*, as explained by Warren Buffet. Read up.

Just because you want things for free or cheaply, doesn’t mean there’s a problem. It’s good to want things. 

Why then are phone sales flat YoY? Cook is desperate to keep growing revenue, and he's using the ridiculous mentality they use on the public transport here in the UK: Less sales, raise prices to compensate. Results in a vicious circle of less people buying iPhones because of the cost, then raising of prices to maintain revenue. Where does it end? It's pretty obvious to any businessman cutting prices boosts sales. Cook seems to think the opposite. Remember he's an operations guy, not a visionary.

Apple met its own guidance and increased sales YOY. On top of that people said last year Apple was doomed because people weren’t buying the iPhone X. Turned out Apple sold far more of them then it anticipated. People elected for the more expensive X over the 8.

It is OK Tim isn’t a visionary as long as he has a strong creative team and he empowers them. Apple is spending tons of money on health care research. The Apple Wstch is utilizing some of that research. There is lot more Apple can do in health care.

Further, if Apple’s unit growth is maturing then any smart CEO is going to try and grow the company by offering some higher price point products. Apple’s approach is offering lower priced phones in the XR and more expensive models in the XS. 

More over the Wall Street Journal doesn’t name sources and has a history of being wrong.

These cases are not similar at all and the assertion that they are shows a lack of understanding concerning anti-trust Law.  


Anti-trust is about protecting the consumer by ensuring fair competition. Europe’s rules and the US rules differ, but the principles are the same.  They tend on focusing on preventing monopolists from abusing their power to enter new markets or squeezing out competition.

In Europe Google has a monopoly when it comes to search and it’s phone operating system. Third party phone makers  have no realistic choice, but to use Android. Google is using this dominance to ensure its other services like email, search, and itsbrowser stay entrenched by forcing hardware manufacturers to bundle these services or else not get a license to use Android.

microsoft did the same thing with Windows. Pc makers would get very unfavorable licensing terms or no license at all  if they didn’t bundle and make Explorer the default. It put the then dominant Netscape out of business. 

Apple got a raw deal with e-books. Apple had no market power to force publishers to do anything. The system Amazon favored allowed it to set the prices of ebooks thereby often selling the ebooks at a loss to publishers. Further, Amazon has the monopoly in online book sales and was using that monopoly to force publishers to give favorable terms for ebooks. The government screwed that one up. That is why Apple felt confident it would win at trial.

with the App Store Apple doesn’t have a monopoly for phone hardware sales. If you don’t like the App Store buy a phone made by somebody else.